From: | Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Laszlo Hornyak <kocka(at)forgeahead(dot)hu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Runtime accepting build discrepancies |
Date: | 2005-03-11 00:36:31 |
Message-ID: | 4230E80F.2000903@mailblocks.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Laszlo Hornyak wrote:
> IMHO this is why decoupling is good and neccesary. If one configures
> the RDBMS to use different another of data, then I simply replace a
> couple of lines in the data mapping configuration. In the case of
> custom datatypes in PostgreSQL, the same happens. This is no code
> modification nor recomplitation in PL-J, only a reconfiguration.
> This is why I have sent that link, but this configuration file
> fragment may explain it better:
> <typemapper>
> <map>
> <type db="timestamp"
> class="org.pgj.typemapping.postgres.PGTimestamp"/>
> <!-- type db="timestamp"
> class="org.pgj.typemapping.postgres.PGTimestampINT64"/ -->
Sure Laszlo. That solves everything. But where do you get the
information on what to comment out and what to use in the first place?
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-03-11 01:27:03 | Re: Raw size |
Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2005-03-11 00:32:53 | Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |